Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Effectiveness of Philosophy

Posted on: July 1, 2011 - 12:35am

Weston Bortner

Posts: 56

Joined: 2011-06-12

Offline

Effectiveness of Philosophy

Most of the defenses of Christianity are philosophical. But one of my main wonders is how reliable can philosophy (or theology for that matter) be if both rely on human logic, which is usually known to be flawed or just plain wrong.

For instance, in William Paley's day, his watchmaker theology was pretty much irrefutable. Some people didn't buy it, but they weren't able to come up with a better answer for the appearance of life on Earth. Then Charles Darwin came along, and everything changed, and the truth of Evolution showed us how we came to be in a way that we never would have imagined possible. Some people challenge evolution (as we all know) by claiming that there is no way that such and such could have evolved naturally. They claim that it had to have been created and then, when we challenge that, they claim that we assume that it can because we have a naturalistic bias. But isn't it just as fair to assume that they merely claim that there IS a supernatural cause because of their supernaturalistic bias?

Anyway, my point is I don't think that, no matter how sophisticated theology and philosophy are, I don't think they are the way we ultimately discover how life and the universe operate.

Our job on this Earth, is to take care of each other. Something that we have ultimately failed at doing, hence why we are so miserable.

Any and all 'defenses' of religion are merely 'arguments'. They are not based on anything but 'pleading'.

Weston Bortner wrote:

But one of my main wonders is how reliable can philosophy (or theology for that matter) be if both rely on human logic, which is usually known to be flawed or just plain wrong.

Philosophy is patently sophomoric. It's not even a pseudo science. It's merely pontificating and lecturing in an authoritarian manner. In that sense, they're very 'priestlike'.

The best is when they pull out their 'Modal Logic' bullshit.

We've had a few pricks come in here and desperately try and make tenable defenses, and fail miserably.

The Modal Arguments all fail.

We cannot reliably 'get ahead of ourselves' in certainty with 'logic', or 'intuition'.

Our 'logic' is only properly shaped, and accurate by a posteriori certainty, not by a priorispeculations. So, Modal Logic arguments are a complete fallacy.

I proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt with the classic example of "What goes up, must come down!" axiom that was 'logically' consistent with all observations and empirical 'experiments' till we discovered that what seemed 'logical' and 'true' was in fact, never actually either.

We don't know anything, till we know for certain. In order for us to be 'certain', there has to be consistency and reliability in our ability to make accurate predictions.

Put simply, only 20/20 hindsight is capable of distilling reality with 100% certainty.

Period.

Stop.

Weston Bortner wrote:

For instance, in William Paley's day, his watchmaker theology was pretty much irrefutable.

No one is arguing that a tornado in a junkyard could assemble a fully functioning 747, so any such "Blind Watchmaker' analogies are embarrassingly infantile, to attempt with intelligent people. The problem is that the median IQ is quite low, and these types of analogies resonate with their 'intuitions', that it's a parallel analogy.

Weston Bortner wrote:

Some people didn't buy it, but they weren't able to come up with a better answer for the appearance of life on Earth.

Well, knowledge is power.

And the church has always been about reigning over the population. The desire to position itself as the arbiters and authorities over behaviours and customs.

There is no disputing that.

They would have no 'power' if they were no better informed than anyone else. So they pretended to 'know' things they absolutely didn't know about. And people are still 'buying' it, hook, line, and sinker, even in the 21st century, which boggles my fricken' mind...

Weston Bortner wrote:

Anyway, my point is I don't think that, no matter how sophisticated theology and philosophy are, I don't think they are the way we ultimately discover how life and the universe operate.

I've come to the conclusion that, except for the terminally stupid, and the complete batshit crazy theists, that, the majority of intelligent theists don't actually 'believe' in what they profess, but lean towards the 'morals' that they personally have cherry picked, and feel that the number of minions, and that the 'fear' that there might actually be some supremely powerful deity, will somehow coerce more people to 'fall in line' with their personal preferences for 'moral' behaviour and personal conduct.

Problem is, that atheists worldwide, number in the hundreds of millions. But, particularly in America, they're completely ignorant to European countries, and other continents, so they live in the delusion that Christianity prevails most everywhere, except the Middle East.

Religion is all about coercion through scare tactics, by pretending to know that we'll all suffer a terrible fate if we don't do as they say.

I think reading philosophy books is useful for two things:
-learn to use big words and learn to use word surgically
-learn to insult
and last but not least: the only thing philosophers agree is that the ones before them were wrong.

I think reading philosophy books is useful for two things: -learn to use big words and learn to use word surgically -learn to insult and last but not least: the only thing philosophers agree is that the ones before them were wrong.

Pretty much.

I have respect for some writers/thinkers who happen to be Philosophers, if they seem well informed, insightful, with interesting ideas, etc.

My favorite trio, who I have often mentioned, are David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and Daniel Dennett. There are others I have come across as well, but they are the ones that stick in my mind.

But I have read and listened to so much BS from famous philosophers, from Plato and co. onwards, that I know just where you are coming from.

Philosophy is patently sophomoric. It's not even a pseudo science. It's merely pontificating and lecturing in an authoritarian manner.

What redneF said... want to weasel your own personal morality as an absolute truth valid for all? Promote it as a philosophy. Have some point of view you want other people to accept and incorporate into their lives without question? Grab the 'philosophy' paintbrush.

Want to (attempt to) validate religion/religious dogma before hardcore atheists? Pull out a philosophy book or two. Throw in some actual substance here and there to add to confusion.

The problem being, if not already obvious from the broad examples I gave or those rednef gave, is that sometimes philosophy is easily mistaken for the 'substance' I mentioned previously. Indeed, sometimes philosophy is not recognized as merely philosophy at times, even by the most critically thought out of skeptics.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Anyway, my point is I don't think that, no matter how sophisticated theology and philosophy are, I don't think they are the way we ultimately discover how life and the universe operate.

There is a large extent to which the word 'philosophy' can be abused. Understanding that giant caveat is pretty much a prerequisite to getting the good stuff out of philosophy.

On the other hand, if we look at the development of early science, it arose out of various philosophical ideas, and could justifiably be considered an extension or sub-set of philosophy. Science is philosophy that has been shown to really work.

Leaving science aside for a moment, there are still some good things in philosophy that are not strictly speaking science, but which are still useful. For instance, the idea of a Socratic dialogue, or using the Socratic method. A very very useful thing, not science, mostly based in philosophy, and I use it all the time.

The idea of Cartesian skepticism. Very useful, on a personal level. If you want to clear the garbage out of your head, you need to examine everything you believe, from the bottom on up.

Occam's Razor. Not strictly science, although it is getting much closer to being codified under Information Theory, so it is getting there. But currently (or to be on the safe side, let's say for a long time in the past) it is just a philosophical principle, and it has been very useful in science and in general life.

Some things begin as philosophical speculation, and later find the underlying theory in scientific investigation. Human morality is a good example of this. We all have innate intuitions of right and wrong. For a long time, no one knew how to test these scientifically. Now they can.

The science almost always trumps the speculations, but that doesn't make the speculations worthless.

And then there are the potential bridges between science and philosophy. Heck, there's even the philosophy of science, which has some crackpot ideas, but also has a lot of interesting things to say about knowledge and the human process of conducting science.

Personally, I've founded my own philosophy on pragmatism, and so I find this philosophy works extremely well with science. Beyond that, I've made speculations about wonder, fear, intuition, etc. which are philosophical, but informed by whatever knowledge I can muster from science.

Daniel Dennett is the best modern philosopher I know of who embodies the science-based philosophical approach I'm outlining.

Granted, 90% of philosophy is crap. But then, 90% of everything is crap. You just have to sort out the good stuff and go with that. Or don't bother if you don't care that much.

Most of the defenses of Christianity are philosophical. But one of my main wonders is how reliable can philosophy (or theology for that matter) be if both rely on human logic, which is usually known to be flawed or just plain wrong.

For instance, in William Paley's day, his watchmaker theology was pretty much irrefutable. Some people didn't buy it, but they weren't able to come up with a better answer for the appearance of life on Earth. Then Charles Darwin came along, and everything changed, and the truth of Evolution showed us how we came to be in a way that we never would have imagined possible. Some people challenge evolution (as we all know) by claiming that there is no way that such and such could have evolved naturally. They claim that it had to have been created and then, when we challenge that, they claim that we assume that it can because we have a naturalistic bias. But isn't it just as fair to assume that they merely claim that there IS a supernatural cause because of their supernaturalistic bias?

Anyway, my point is I don't think that, no matter how sophisticated theology and philosophy are, I don't think they are the way we ultimately discover how life and the universe operate.

LOL. Please don't think me demeening in starting my comment this way but I am bursting a gut over this post. I'll try to get serious though.

First of all I agree that Many defenses of Christianity are philosophical.

Second I agree that using Philosophy is not a good defense for Christainity.

Third, I am grateful for sincere statements that are made like this because they are true and they are honest reflections.

Why am I laughing then. Not to be mean. Its the statement that "and the truth of Evolution showed us....". This is an argument based on a philosophy put out by Darwin not a fact. Remember Darwins theory has never graduated to being fact. It is still called the theory of Evolution. Darwin had a philosophy of how life came about. What I find funny is that a "Philosophy" is being used here to refute the fact that Christians often fall into the trap of using a philosopy in their arguments.

Quote:

1 Tim 6.20-21 - Keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding dishonourable and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called which some asserting have erred concerning the faith.

Good science is OK but false science is things that are based more on belief than provable facts. Evolution is a false science because it cannot be proven. If you are going to prove beginnings you have to go to the very beginning and prove that everything came from nothing. This is never done by the false science of Evolution. Christianity actually teaches that everything was made from nothing by a maker. The false science of Evolution tries to say the same thing without a maker. However it is never comfortable starting at the very beginning when there was nothing in its proofs it tries to offer. It is always more comfortable starting with something material then proceeding from there. Even the big bang theory still wants a greatly compressed to the size of a basket ball sized piece of matter that explodes. It never wants there to be absolutely nothing at the beginning. That is why the false Science of Evolution can never be proven. As a theory it is a Philosophy if followed. Evolution is a hypothesis only. But when we say how strongly we believe it what we are saying is that it has become our philosophy. And it becomes our philosophy of life to see everything in its light. This is the same thing for the Christian. He looks at what is said in the Bible and it becomes his philosophy of life to see things in the light of the Bible. But the difference is that the Bible is a provable document. The writings of Darwin are not.

This is an argument based on a philosophy put out by Darwin not a fact. Remember Darwins theory has never graduated to being fact. It is still called the theory of Evolution.

This is a demonstration of ignorance in both science and English. Evolution has been proven. As much as gravity, which is also referred to as a theory. The term theory has multiple definitions, and the common definition is significantly different from the scientific. You'll need to read this before attempting to debate anyone who has knowledge of any scientific theory, or you'll just come off as an uneducated rube:

Philosophy is at best mental masturbation. It should be done in private and you should wash your hands afterward.If you have to share it with someone, make sure they wish to be involved.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

This is an argument based on a philosophy put out by Darwin not a fact. Remember Darwins theory has never graduated to being fact. It is still called the theory of Evolution.

This is a demonstration of ignorance in both science and English. Evolution has been proven. As much as gravity, which is also referred to as a theory. The term theory has multiple definitions, and the common definition is significantly different from the scientific. You'll need to read this before attempting to debate anyone who has knowledge of any scientific theory, or you'll just come off as an uneducated rube: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

LOL. I noticed the site name relies on using the word 'theory' as it's topic. Just as you cannot have the philosophy of Darwin without a theory, you cannot have an 'A' without a 'Theist'.

LOL. I noticed the site name relies on using the word 'theory' as it's topic. Just as you cannot have the philosophy of Darwin without a theory, you cannot have an 'A' without a 'Theist'.

Gotta ask... do you have a CLUE of what the word 'theory' actually means?You like so many other theistically impaired persons seem to believe that 'theory' means 'guess'.A scientific theory is the result of observation, experimentation, documentation utilizing facts to come to a reasoned explanation of an observed phenomena. Evolution is an observed and PROVEN fact. The mechanism by which evolution functions is theoretical and the best theory about how it works is from the brilliant work of Charles Darwin.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

LOL. I noticed the site name relies on using the word 'theory' as it's topic. Just as you cannot have the philosophy of Darwin without a theory, you cannot have an 'A' without a 'Theist'.

Gotta ask... do you have a CLUE of what the word 'theory' actually means?You like so many other theistically impaired persons seem to believe that 'theory' means 'guess'.A scientific theory is the result of observation, experimentation, documentation utilizing facts to come to a reasoned explanation of an observed phenomena. Evolution is an observed and PROVEN fact. The mechanism by which evolution functions is theoretical and the best theory about how it works is from the brilliant work of Charles Darwin.

LC >;-}>

Charles Darwin was not brilliant in his philosophy when compared to Jesus, in that Charles never predicted anything in the future that came true. He did predict that things he could not prove in his lifetime would be proved by others but nothing other than hoaxes have been presented by others as proofs. If you know anything about the charts that show the decent of man many of the named men on the charts have been disproven to be evolutionary progress of mankind for example. One of the men in the chart, I think it was the Piltdown man turned out to be a tooth of a pig instead. (They had extrapolated an entire man for the chart from something that recent dna testing has proven was a pigs tooth.) The Neandrethal man turns out to be a giant with arthritis but has the same DNA as we do today with no distinguishable difference. So he too has been disqualified. We have had examples of giants throughout history. (People that reach 7 to 8 feet tall range). The Geological column as outlined in textbooks is missing any location in the world where it can be verbatum repeated. The funiest science I have read regards determining which came first the chicken or the egg. Scientists have concluded it was the egg because it has one dna. If it were a full grown chicken it would have to have another chicken with some variation in the DNA to mate with to produce the EGG. That would require 2x the complexity as it would require for the EGG to have come first. So therefore they conclude the EGG came first. However they stop there and don't explain where the other egg came from with diverse enough DNA to mate with the other EGG (After hatching of course). And they don't bother telling us how the DNA evolved to create these EGGS that must have simultaneously appeared. And of course they do not go back to tell us how noting became something without a maker to make something out of nothing. However they do ask us to believe. In fact in order to be an "A" here you have to be extreemly religious. Your religion is what I would call Secular Humanism. Its first tenant as a religion is that you must believe evolution. The second tennant of Secular Humanism is that you don't believe it is a religion. The third tennant is that you belive all religions are evil. (You can exempt your own religion by defining it as not one.) Then you can attack God's religion by saying "I believe my religion". That is in effect what is done in this forum. The bible calls the "A" religion "Man's religion". This is what it says about the comparison of wisdom of man's religion verses the wisdom of belief in God.

Quote:

1 Cor. 1.20 - 25 Where is the disputer (debater) of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God that by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.... Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weekness of God is stronger than men.

God gives stronger evidence for belief in Him than men folowing man's religion gives for following his religion. God uses fulfilled prophecy which can be scientifically studied to prove that what He says is true. In order to persue this science you must read the word of God. 25% of it contains future predictions. If God is true, if we buy into that after studying His predictions and fulfillments then the other things he says in the Bible must also be true and we must allow what He says to govern our lives and not Darwin, Freud and their other friends such as Dawkins. The place to start is to study the predictions of the comming Messiah written in the Old Testament and compare them to the fulfillments in the New Testament. This will also require manuscript study to prove the manuscripts have not been altered. For example the Dead Sea Scrolls copies of the Old testament date to 200 BC. This is important as the prediction must be proven to have been made before the fulfillment. There is a lot to study here but it is a provable science unlike the false science of Evolution.

Charles Darwin was not brilliant in his philosophy when compared to Jesus, in that Charles never predicted anything in the future that came true. He did predict that things he could not prove in his lifetime would be proved by others but nothing other than hoaxes have been presented by others as proofs. If you know anything about the charts that show the decent of man many of the named men on the charts have been disproven to be evolutionary progress of mankind for example. One of the men in the chart, I think it was the Piltdown man turned out to be a tooth of a pig instead. (They had extrapolated an entire man for the chart from something that recent dna testing has proven was a pigs tooth.) The Neandrethal man turns out to be a giant with arthritis but has the same DNA as we do today with no distinguishable difference. So he too has been disqualified. We have had examples of giants throughout history. (People that reach 7 to 8 feet tall range). The Geological column as outlined in textbooks is missing any location in the world where it can be verbatum repeated. The funiest science I have read regards determining which came first the chicken or the egg. Scientists have concluded it was the egg because it has one dna. If it were a full grown chicken it would have to have another chicken with some variation in the DNA to mate with to produce the EGG. That would require 2x the complexity as it would require for the EGG to have come first. So therefore they conclude the EGG came first. However they stop there and don't explain where the other egg came from with diverse enough DNA to mate with the other EGG (After hatching of course). And they don't bother telling us how the DNA evolved to create these EGGS that must have simultaneously appeared. And of course they do not go back to tell us how noting became something without a maker to make something out of nothing. However they do ask us to believe. In fact in order to be an "A" here you have to be extreemly religious. Your religion is what I would call Secular Humanism. Its first tenant as a religion is that you must believe evolution. The second tennant of Secular Humanism is that you don't believe it is a religion. The third tennant is that you belive all religions are evil. (You can exempt your own religion by defining it as not one.) Then you can attack God's religion by saying "I believe my religion". That is in effect what is done in this forum. The bible calls the "A" religion "Man's religion". This is what it says about the comparison of wisdom of man's religion verses the wisdom of belief in God.

It is hard to know where to begin. I may be female, I may be 61 in another week, but I just earned an A in Physical Anthropology. And while I may not have a Master's in science - yet - from your post it is certain I know more than you do.

The researchers removed a sample from the humerous specimen. They analyzed the extend of amino acid racemization to determine suitability for analysis. It was determined that the amino acid levels were at 20% to 73% of those in modern bone, evidencing DNA survival. This and other tests indicated the remains might contain amplifiable DNA. Amplification products were cloned. Twenty seven clones of obvious non-human origin were produced. The entire sequence of hypervariable region 1 was determined, 387 positions. This was accomplished with overlapping segments.

In comparison to modern DNA 27 differences are seen. The Neanderthal sequence was compared with 2051 human and 59 chimpanzee sequences over 360 base pairs. Twenty five of the 27 variable base pairs coincide with positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences. The sequence was compared with 994 human mtDNA lineages. While these lineages differ among themselves by eight substitutions on average, the range of difference with the Neanderthal sequence is 22-36. The Neanderthal sequence has 28.2 ±1.9 substitutions from the European lineage, 27.1 ±12.2 substitutions from the African lineage, 27.7 ±2.2 substitutions from the Asian lineage, 27.4 ±1.8 substitutions from the American lineage, and 28.3 ±2.7 substitutions from the Australian/Oceanic lineages. This indicates no closer a relationship with Europeans than with the other modern human subsets considered.

........

These results do not rule out the possibility that Neanderthals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the results support the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.

In short, Homo neanderthalensis were not Homo sapiens sapiens. Yes, the first specimen they studied had arthritis, but later specimens did not. On average, Neanderthals were shorter than humans and bigger boned, with a slightly larger brain - mostly to match the larger bones elsewhere.

For pages and pages of evidence, including 3d photos of actual human fossils, (a very small sampling of the over 6,000 human ancestor fossils found to date) see http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Quote:

Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.

If you peruse the entire Smithsonian website and have additional questions, I will attempt to answer them or at least point you to valid research. But please don't quote creationist bullpucky again. Or I will really bury you with massive quantities of facts and evidence.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

This is perhaps one of the most concentrated pile of pure bullshit I've seen in one place at one time in YEARS...

Your little tall tale about the Piltdown Hoax being still part of modern taxonomy... Priceless, a lie, but a priceless lie. By the way, the hoax (and it WAS a hoax) was discovered and widely exposed by the scientific community. It wasn't exactly a 'conspiracy' as you creatards like to insinuate.

Jesus had no philosophy that wasn't stolen from the Greeks and even the Pharisees of his time, the only original bit "Kiss my ass or burn in hell" wasn't much of a philosophy.

There has NEVER been a population of giants, certainly not neanderthals found, and I hate to burst your fantasy bubble, but humans can not, and never could live for hundreds of years as your book of fairy tales describes.

I can only assume you are spurting from the mouth about the laughable mistranslation of Isaiah, calling for a virgin birth, which actually was about a young woman (not a virgin) being used as a timer for an impending invasion...it wasn't prophecy, it was current events.

Not a single bit of your goatherder fantasy qualifies as fulfilled prophecy. The bible remains a silly and confused mish mash of superstition, fable, myth and lies...

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

This is probably one of the best tactics used by theists, and specifically creationists. Spew enough aberrations in one paragraph that your brain simply can't handle all the fallacies and just starts ignoring it. It's like watching an inevitable pileup on the highway happen. The stimuli overloads the rationale. You want to refute the first fallacy, and then you read the second, and third and eventually you just become numb to it.

I'm not even sure where to begin, JC has addressed it best I believe... but for someone in this day and age to be this willfully ignorant and idiotic, it should almost be a crime.

This person is "debating" (I'm using the word quite loosely) scientific method fundamentally, while misunderstanding the most common currency terms such as "theory" and "evidence". While using a computer, a device which would not be possible without the science and technology which he is arguing is incorrect at best and a hoax.

People like this deserve to be medically treated with leaches, bleeding and prayers. Fucking morons should practice what they preach. You distrust modern scientific breakthroughs and the theory of evolution (on which all of the anti-viral research is based), you lose the benefit of modern medicine. This way evolution deniers would disappear from the gene pool, ironically proving evolution while denying it. Not much gets me going like creationists.

Freaking... grrrrr.... I'll stop now because I can feel my IQ approaching that of a ID proponent.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

Spew enough aberrations in one paragraph that your brain simply can't handle all the fallacies and just starts ignoring it.

It's called the "Dope-ler Effect".It's when someone throws bullshit at you so rapidly that it appears reasonable.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

In short, Homo neanderthalensis were not Homo sapiens sapiens. Yes, the first specimen they studied had arthritis, but later specimens did not. On average, Neanderthals were shorter than humans and bigger boned, with a slightly larger brain - mostly to match the larger bones elsewhere.

For pages and pages of evidence, including 3d photos of actual human fossils, (a very small sampling of the over 6,000 human ancestor fossils found to date) see http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Again if you want to refute what I said tell me there is a difference in the DNA. There was none. They were completely human specimans. Evolution within a species has always happend but never between a species which is what was attempted to be proved by the charts produced showing the Neandrethal as part of the evolutionary chain. All it proved was a characteristic accentuated within our common genome. Just as pigeons have been bread to have over 50 varieties. This was only possible because the genome had within it the capability for the variety expressed by breeding already. No new information is added by selective breeding that isn't already there.

The same is true of all the attempts to show the progress from Ape to Man. I don't know which one it was but one of the forms in the charts was proven to be an Ape skull attached to Human parts as well. All hoaxes. Nothing provable. Only a false science called Evolution being touted but firmly believed and religiously followed.

Again if you want to refute what I said tell me there is a difference in the DNA. There was none. They were completely human specimans. Evolution within a species has always happend but never between a species which is what was attempted to be proved by the charts produced showing the Neandrethal as part of the evolutionary chain. All it proved was a characteristic accentuated within our common genome. Just as pigeons have been bread to have over 50 varieties. This was only possible because the genome had within it the capability for the variety expressed by breeding already. No new information is added by selective breeding that isn't already there.

Didn't read the article I linked to and/or didn't understand it. Not surprised. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE DNA OF NEANDERTHALS AND SAPIENS - GOT IT??? Probably not.

You don't understand information theory, either. And you don't know what a species is. OR evolution.

Here:

Species - a reproductively isolated population.

Anything there about new information? No.

Evolution - a change in the frequency of an allele in a population of organisms over time.

Anything in there about new species? About new information? No. A change in information - in the frequency of an allele - yes.

Information - a message or collection of messages in an ordered sequence that consists of symbols, or it is the meaning that can be interpreted from such a message or collection of messages

DNA - a self-replicating double helix molecule that contains the genetic code. DNA is the main component in chromosomes. It is used in cell replication, sexual reproduction, protein manufacture and other metabolic functions.

When there is a change in information, evolution happens. It may or may not continue changing until two or more populations are reproductively isolated.

Note - a population may be reproductively isolated yet still be able to have offspring with another population when forced into close proximity. Horses and mules. Dogs and wolves and/or coyotes.

Whitefox wrote:

The same is true of all the attempts to show the progress from Ape to Man. I don't know which one it was but one of the forms in the charts was proven to be an Ape skull attached to Human parts as well. All hoaxes. Nothing provable. Only a false science called Evolution being touted but firmly believed and religiously followed.

YOU CAN NOT ATTACH AN APE SKULL TO A HUMAN BODY SKELETON AND HAVE IT FIT.

Why not? Because humans are obligate bipedal and apes aren't. This is easily demonstrated by noting the position of the foramen magnum. This is where the spine attaches to the skull. It is a very obvious and fairly large hole. Even non-experts can tell the difference between ape (gorilla or chimpanzee or bonobo) and human. An ape is not obligate bipedal. They usually walk on all fours. They can walk on two legs but only for a short distance. Their spine attaches to their skull towards the back of the skull. A human is obligate bipedal. Their spine attaches at the base of the skull - in the center of the bottom of the skull.

Ape skull:

Human skull:

Humans and their ancestors have been obligate bipedal for 5.8 million years. READ the Smithsonian website. This would be a lot more fun if you weren't using such lame arguments. Double dare you. Are you afraid to learn something new? I don't know what your god thinks of you - here he gave you a perfectly good brain and you persist in not using it.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

I agree with BobSpence and Wonderist on philosophy, and I'd like to add some of my own thoughts. I see inquiry as beginning and ending with philosophy, with science being the big chunk of knowledge in the middle; and all of our logic and knowledge comes from experience. I don't see how it's possible to have a future of truth seeking entirely without speculation, but if it is possible I'd like to have it arrive as soon as possible.

The best philosophers are the ones who are naturalists and embrace science as the best way to know, like Dan Dennett.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespearehttp://myanimelist.net/profile/butterbattle

Most of the defenses of Christianity are philosophical. But one of my main wonders is how reliable can philosophy (or theology for that matter) be if both rely on human logic, which is usually known to be flawed or just plain wrong.

First of all I agree that Many defenses of Christianity are philosophical.

An opinion based on ignorance.

Philosophy requires a person to question the evidence presented. People of religion base their belief system on faith. People of faith can not question their faith because it requires them to stop believing in their god.

Whitefox wrote:

Remember Darwins theory has never graduated to being fact. It is still called the theory of Evolution.

Neither has the theory of gravity and yet it is still a fact that gravity exists.

Whitefox wrote:

Evolution is a false science because it cannot be proven.

You are repeating yourself. We have already established that the theory of evolution is a theory, but it is a excellent theory which has been tested for a very, very long time. See my correction on grammar below.

Don't believe in evolution? Look no further than the common cold, caused by a Rhinovirus, which constantly mutates a thousand times, a thousand generations, every year. Thus no cure (at least for now).

Whitefox wrote:

If you are going to prove beginnings you have to go to the very beginning and prove that everything came from nothing.

You seem to have all the answers, so when you going to start proving that every thing came from nothing?

(me foreshadowing)

Oh my, hahaha, silly me. I completely forgot. Your "god" has existed and always will? Talk about being a hypocrite.

Whitefox wrote:

However it is never comfortable starting at the very beginning when there was nothing in its proofs it tries to offer.

You need to read up on string theory.

(side subject)

This exact subject (what existed before the Universe) is why I totally quit believing in religion.

No one could answer any of my questions about what existed "before" other than "god existed before time and made the Universe from nothing".

Whitefox wrote:

That is why the false Science of Evolution can never be proven.

Sorry, pet-peeve here...

Proved, not proven.

Proven is used before a noun such as "it has not been proven that the science of evolution..."

While proved, "the science of evolution can never be proved..."

Whitefox wrote:

As a theory it is a Philosophy if followed. Evolution is a hypothesis only.

Get your statement straight. Do you have ADHD?

A philosophy of Darwin, ok.

A theory of evolution, ok.

Hypothesis? I believe we are beyond this phase of scientific method.

Evolution happens almost every day and to show an example, Google "Peppered moth evolution".

Whitefox wrote:

But the difference is that the Bible is a provable document. The writings of Darwin are not.

I can't wait for you to provide evidence showing that the bible is a document. Really. I can't wait.

You are correct, the writings of Darwin are not a document, I believe there were "documents" at one point and later were published in a book.

Yeah, I realize that. He obviously doesn't realize that it wasn't an ape skull and a human skeleton - it was an orangutang jawbone and a human skull - and it was debunked by scientists. Not by creationists. The obvious difference between the upper and lower jaws should have been a dead give away. Homo specimens have a jaw shape that is an arch, top and bottom. Pan and Australopithecus have a "U" shape top and bottom. Piltdown man's teeth wouldn't have lined up and he couldn't have chewed his food.

My professor brought in some of the department's collection of resin casts of actual fossil skulls to class. And passed them around the room letting us feel the differences in size and shape. Darn cool. There is little and only very subtle differences between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis. They are even about the same size. And many are convinced that afarensis is Homo's direct ancestor.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Again if you want to refute what I said tell me there is a difference in the DNA. There was none. They were completely human specimans. Evolution within a species has always happend but never between a species which is what was attempted to be proved by the charts produced showing the Neandrethal as part of the evolutionary chain. All it proved was a characteristic accentuated within our common genome. Just as pigeons have been bread to have over 50 varieties. This was only possible because the genome had within it the capability for the variety expressed by breeding already. No new information is added by selective breeding that isn't already there.

The same is true of all the attempts to show the progress from Ape to Man. I don't know which one it was but one of the forms in the charts was proven to be an Ape skull attached to Human parts as well. All hoaxes. Nothing provable. Only a false science called Evolution being touted but firmly believed and religiously followed.

It is a common misconception that "apes" evolved in to "man". The closest relative to humans are the chimpanzees.